Cited by 33Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIAI in Service Interactions

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Powered Virtual Assistants and their Effect on Human Productivity and Laziness: Study on Students of Delhi-NCR (India) & Fujairah (UAE)

Open access
Sabharwal, Dhruv, Kabha, Robin, Srivastava, Kajal·2023·Journal of Content Community and Communication

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on decision-making, laziness, and privacy concerns among university students of Delhi NCR (India) and Fujairah (UAE). As AI technologies are increasingly adopted in various sectors, including education, to tackle contemporary challenges, there is a growing investment in AI, projected to reach USD 253.82 million between 2021 and 2025. However, while researchers and institutions worldwide praise the positive role of AI, this study sheds light on the concerns associated with its implementation. This study utilizes a qualitative methodology employing PLS-Smart for data analysis. The primary data was collected from 315 students representing various universities in Delhi NCR (India) and Fujairah (UAE). The sample was drawn using purposive sampling techniques from the population. The findings of the data analysis demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI) has a significant impact on human decision-making, laziness, and security and privacy concerns. The results indicate that 68.9% of human laziness, 68.6% of personal privacy and security issues, and 27.7% of the loss of decision-making can be attributed to the influence of AI in Delhi and Fujairah. Notably, human laziness emerges as the most affected area due to artificial intelligence..

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31620/jccc.06.23/12

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overreliance on GenAI tools can lead to cognitive dependency, diminishing students' ability to formulate original arguments, critically assess alternative perspectives and decision-making processes.

    “Overreliance on GenAI tools can lead to cognitive dependency, diminishing students' ability to formulate original arguments, critically assess alternative perspectives and decision-making processes [33,80,100].”

    From A Systematic Literature Review on the Pedagogical Implications and Impact of GenAI on Students' Critical Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Implications section says that overreliance on AI may reduce students’ critical thinking and innovation, and the Discussion links reliance on AI to diminished decision-making ability. The paper addresses AI tools generally, however, and does not specifically discuss GenAI or students’ ability to formulate original arguments and assess alternative perspectives. No page numbers were provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cognitive offloading can hinder CT development and reinforce dependency on external cognitive agents.

    “This can hinder CT development and reinforce dependency on external cognitive agents [33].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Jordan P, Troth A (2020) Common method bias in applied settings: the dilemma of researching in organizations. Aust J Manag 45(1):2-14.
  2. Karandish D (2021) 7 Benefits of AI in education. The Journal. https:// thejournal. com/Articles/2021/06/23/7- Benefits-of-AI-in-Education.aspx
  3. Khan GA, Shahid MK, Ahmad SF (2014) Convergence of broadcasting and tele- communication technology regulatory framework in Pakistan. Int J Manag Commer Innov 2(1):35-43
  4. Meissner P, Keding C (2021) The human factor in AI-based decision-making. MIT Sloan Rev 63(1):1-5
  5. Nawaz N, Gomes AM, Saldeen AM (2020) Artificial intelligence (AI) applications for library services and resources in COVID- 19 pandemic. J Crit Rev 7(18):1951-1955
  6. Oh C, Lee T, Kim Y (2017) Us vs. them: understanding artificial intelligence technophobia over the Google DeepMind challenge match. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2523-2534

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sabharwal, D., Kabha, R., & Srivastava, K.
Affiliations
  • Sharda University (IN)
  • Fujairah University (AE)
  • Jaipuria Institute of Management (IN)
Corresponding author
Srivastava, Kajal
Venue
Journal of Content Community and Communication
Published
2023-06-30
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
162-174
ISSN
  • 2395-7514 (ISSN-L)
  • 2456-9011
OpenAlex
W4385078463
Cited by
33
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
7.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Content Community and Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
artificial intelligence, virtual assistants, human productivity, laziness, decision-making, privacy concerns, security concerns, university students, AI adoption in education, cross-cultural comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review